Desires are natural inclinations — Harry Hindu
I don't think so. Culture evolves, doesn't it? Evolutionary psychology and related disciplines make use of an evolutionary perspective. And more to the point, one of the consequences of evolutionary theory, generally, is that everything about h. sapiens is ultimately a product of evolution. Isn't it? If not, why? — Wayfarer
surely you can see a difference between the conceptual framework of biological evolution through natural selection and cultural history? They're two distinct and exclusive ways of framing an issue. — Reformed Nihilist
Sure! Then it's no longer an implication of evolution. — Wayfarer
...which includes the diverse ways in which minds work and adapt (learn) to the environment, hence evolutionary psychology's new and powerful explanatory power. I don't see how someone can go on about the explanatory power of biological diversity, which includes how the brain evolved, yet say evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of conjecture.Right. That's what I said. I feel as though you mean that ironically for some reason, as if thinking everything should be "an implication of evolution", because I think evolution is a good theory for the explanation of biological diversity. — Reformed Nihilist
yet say evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of conjecture. — Harry Hindu
Evolution is a truth — TheMadFool
Evolution is a truth. — TheMadFool
Genes don't even care about their survival. They don't even possess knowledge. Genes just do what they do. We can have many reasons for doing the things we do, but it all narrows down to survival in the natural and social environment. We can either possess the knowledge for the reasons we do the things we do, or delude ourselves into thinking that the things we do and what we are are really "special" to the point that scientific theories can never explain them. — Harry Hindu
That is a problem because it has led to some pernicious claims — Andrew4Handel
Truths can be good or bad. — Andrew4Handel
Now your left with the terrible behaviour and no purpose or divine protection or hope. — Andrew4Handel
Genes don't try to do anything. They don't have a mind with a goal that they then try to achieve. They simply function as a result of causal forces driving them forward."What is the selfish gene? It is not just one single physical bit of DNA Just as in the primeval soup, it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world. If we allow ourselves the licence of talking about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring ourselves that we could translate our sloppy language back into respectable terms if we wanted to, we can ask the question, what is a single selfish gene trying to do? It is trying to get more numerous in the gene pool."
I don't think you can translate purposeful language back to mechnical language in the way he wants to. — Andrew4Handel
I think evolution by natural selection is the best theory we have. Sure the mind is a difficult thing to explain, but it seems to me that science has a much better track record in it's short history compared to religious and philosophical explanations. Give it time and don't be afraid to read books and watch videos on the subject, as I posted above in my response to Reformed Nihilist.Also I don't think evolution is at all sufficient to explain being human because our fundamental feature is we have a rich consciousness that has not being explained by science and any theory of our psychology is defunct in my opinion unless we explain consciousness.
Psychological Theories are already confounded because of the private nature of consciousness and mental states making them inaccessible. Also even without consciousness the mind is the most complex thing to explain because humans have a wide range of mental faculties whose definition is controversial and a huge range of causal influences and competing psychological models and perspectives etc — Andrew4Handel
I think evolution by natural selection is the best theory we have. Sure the mind is a difficult thing to explain, but it seems to me that science has a much better track record in it's short history compared to religious and philosophical explanations. Give it time and don't be afraid to read books and watch videos on the subject, as I posted above in my response to Reformed Nihilist. — Harry Hindu
You are aware that there are more options than just Dennett's, right? Ever heard of the attention schema theory of consciousness? — Harry Hindu
The field explores the problems our ancestors had to solve and the mental processes and functions that would solve them and how that explains our current condition.I'm not suggesting that evolution wouldn't, in principle, apply to psychology. I'm under the impression that in practice, the field of evolutionary psychology is largely conjectural, and there's little to be had between two alternate explanations of a given psychological trait. Is that not the case? — Reformed Nihilist
Well, I consider explaining the reasons we think the way we do and behave the way we do quite important. The unexamined life isn't worth living.Regarding keeping myself educated, it's all about prioritizing, right? Apart from educating myself for direct personal or professional gain, the rest is just following my nose. I pretty much look into whatever seems interesting to me at the time. At the moment, evolutionary psychology doesn't make that cut. Maybe that'll change. — Reformed Nihilist
The field explores the problems our ancestors had to solve and the mental processes and functions that would solve them and how that explains our current condition. — Harry Hindu
If you're asking the questions, then it seems that you ate interested and would probably garner more information if you didn't take my word for it, but rather get it straight from the scientists in the field. — Harry Hindu
Well, I consider explaining the reasons we think the way we do and behave the way we do quite important. The unexamined life isn't worth living. — Harry Hindu
The ways we think are a result of the environmental (natural and social) problems our ancestors faced and needed to solve. We haven't changed much since, which is part of the problems we have in the environment we find ourselves in now.I am actually more interested in what the ways we think (and specifically decide) are, rather than the historical causes for these ways of thinking. — Reformed Nihilist
The ways we think are a result of the environmental (natural and social) problems our ancestors faced and needed to solve. We haven't changed much since, which is part of the problems we have in the environment we find ourselves in now.
It should be obvious that the body influences the mind and the mind influences the body. How is it that natural selection only influences the body and not the mind as well? — Harry Hindu
No. Problems aren't passed down, but their solutions are.Acutally they're not. Firstly, problems faced are not passed down genetically; knowledge can't be isolated or transferred that simply. And Punctuated Equilibrium would break down that connection anyway since we don't evolve in a progressive timeline. — Thanatos Sand
The socio-cultural surroundings is basically our environment that we find ourselves in. A concrete jungle filled with thousands of other human beings is just another type of natural environment. We are products of natural causes, just like every other species. Other species have different social environments. To say that theirs is natural and ours isn't is to reject the basic tenet of evolution by natural selection - that we are natural animals that fill our own environmental niche.Secondly, much of our way we think is irrationally and rationally derived from our socio-cultural surroundings, of which the transfer cannot be isolated or traced. — Thanatos Sand
Yet you participate in a philosophy forum which is nothing but conjecture, yet I don't see you making that argument.Only if you assume that the answer is that the field is more than conjecture. — Reformed Nihilist
Acutally they're not. Firstly, problems faced are not passed down genetically; knowledge can't be isolated or transferred that simply. And Punctuated Equilibrium would break down that connection anyway since we don't evolve in a progressive timeline.
— Thanatos Sand
No. Problems aren't passed down, but their solutions are.
Secondly, much of our way we think is irrationally and rationally derived from our socio-cultural surroundings, of which the transfer cannot be isolated or traced.
— Thanatos Sand
The socio-cultural surroundings is basically our environment that we find ourselves in. A concrete jungle filled with thousands of other human beings is just another type of natural environment. We are products of natural causes, just like every other species. Other species have different social environments. To say that theirs is natural and ours isn't is to reject the basic tenet of evolution by natural selection - that we are natural animals that fill our own environmental niche.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.